|
Post by RitaMarita on Mar 13, 2023 16:21:13 GMT -5
I have been wanting to say something about this for quite some time.
I agree with Bishop Sanborn in principal that it is best that Francis' name not be mentioned in the Mass (non una cum/NUC as those here call it), but I don't think he has the right to condemn those who do so or who attend Masses of those who do because they have no other option.
That being said, I have noticed recently that some people have been condemning Bishop Sanborn for this and that they have been advising people to stay away from his and his priests' Masses even if they have no where better to go.
I think that this is wrong and these people are doing themselves what they accuse him of.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 353
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 19, 2023 4:06:21 GMT -5
If you have nowhere else to go I wouldn't discourage anyone from attending the RCI. However, given the size of their organisation it is very unlikely that there would be nowhere else to go. I have friends who attend NUC chapels and they have unnecessarily restricted their life opportunities because they drank the NUC-aide. Proximity to Mass is so important in the life of a Catholic and there are very few NUC Mass locations. Given that the RCI refuses the sacraments to those who don't hold their positions, you're heading down a potential path of unecessary heartache if you have options but you choose to go there instead.
Regarding the title of this topic, I don't really see much of an Anti-NUC war. My experience is rather one of constant attacks on those not holding the NUC position. Stephen LM Heiner's hit pieces on the CMRI were a good example of this. Many who have adopted the NUC position tend to hold fast to it because they are absolutely convinced that they are correct and believe those who don't agree with them are schismatics and/or have lost the Catholic Faith like the Apostate Papal Imposters. It is a case of public rash judgement of entire groups of Christians. For many they are so sure of themselves there is nothing you can do to convince them that the Church teaches differently to what they believe.
A dogmatic NUC position promotes division, sectarianism and eventually schism will be the outcome, if this hasn't already happened in reality. It is modern day donatism/luciferianism (after Bp Lucifer of Cagliari).
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 20, 2023 11:50:31 GMT -5
Hi Rita, Thanks for your thoughts. I would like to say that the analogy to a war is more like those opposing the NUCs being like an ant, and they being an elephant. They control the narrative and have for a long time, with only John Lane and a few others standing against it. This forum is tiny, so our influence is very limited. They have a massive internet presence on Twitter, Facebook, Discord, etc., along with their large organizations, publications and sermons. If this is a war, in a human sense, they are certainly crushing us, and the only way we will "win" is with the truth and by exposing their false teaching. They are teaching Catholics a dangerous error, namely that to attend a Catholic Mass (said in the Catholic rite by a Catholic priest) is a mortal sin to attend, and is even equivalent to idolatry, merely because the priest errs by naming an undeclared antipope. Their error leads Catholics to believe a dangerous and evil error, and then act on that, thereby denying themselves the life giving sacraments that are morally necessary for salvation. I personally know many that have been harmed by this error, who either receive no sacraments, or at least less frequently than they could due to this, and I have met many more on the internet who either have deprived themselves of the sacraments or tell me of others that are deprived due to this. For myself, I am telling no one what to do, to go to mass of a NUC bishop or priest or not. The only thing close to that was when I told Voxx on this forum, that I would not go to Bishop Sanborn or his priests even if they were next door to me. I did not tell others they must do the same. I say this because he doesn't just hold and teach the NUC error, he binds Catholics to also hold it if they go to his chapels and will be denied Holy Communion if they disobey him and attend an SSPX or other similar mass. I will also say that one must protect their families from those pushing this error, as they may be infected by it. Many Catholics do not have the theological sophistication to see through this very complex sophistry, and if one brings their spouse, children, parents, friends, etc. to a chapel where this is being preached, it's very possible and maybe even probable that such persons will become infected with the error. I would say the same about being very careful going to a chapel where Feeneyism is being preached, or where Pope Pius XII's moral teaching on a marriage matter is being preached against. It's always a grave danger to expose those who are less strong in their Faith or less educated in these matters, to be in a situation where these errors will be taught to them, and in this case be preached to them by a bishop or priest. If I went to Bishop Sanborn or his priests and they know that I go to SSPX or eastern rites, and if they deny me Holy Communion due to this, they violate the law of the Catholic Church, and it is objectively a mortal sin for the priest to do this. Made up communion rules of a group are not a justification to disobey the law of the Catholic Church. Interestingly enough, Fr. Cekada wrote a very good explanation on the very similar made up communion rules of the SSPV and how they violate the law of the Catholic Church: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/476/right-receive-communion-cekadaI don't see any essential difference in substituting in Fr. Cekada's tract the NUC bishops and priests for the SSPV, who do the same thing. In both cases, they are binding Catholics to an unsettled matter, and then proceeding to judge a Catholic who will not obey them, and through that judgment deny a Catholic Holy Communion for a ground that is not permitted by the law or the Church. One last point, the NUC error divides Catholics from each other, and divides families. I personally know of many examples. I know of cases where husbands and wives will not attend mass together over this matter. This obviously leads to tension in their marriages. There are other cases where Catholic parents or grandparents will not attend a valid Catholic mass, said by a Catholic priest, with their adult children, or grandchildren. It will obviously be a major cause of division in one choosing a suitable spouse who in every way is compatible, but if they disagree on this one matter, it may destroy a potentially beautiful Catholic matrimony. This entire controversy is a made up toxic mess, it never had to happen, it shouldn't have happened, but it did, and it is seriously harming Catholics on so many levels and needs to be publicly opposed. The fruits of this error are there for all to see, the loss of the sacraments, division among Catholics, disunity, etc.
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Mar 20, 2023 13:15:13 GMT -5
We certainly need to be more proactive in opposing this error. The only video on YouTube which opposes it seems to be Voxx's. On the other hand, just the other day I was listening to an interview by Kevin Davis of a young man who converted, but left the SSPX on Fr Cekada's advice believing that he had to "get out of there". They have much more accessible propaganda than we do.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 353
|
Post by John Lewis on Mar 20, 2023 13:41:46 GMT -5
If I went to Bishop Sanborn or his priests and they know that I go to SSPX or eastern rites, and if they deny me Holy Communion due to this, they violate the law of the Catholic Church, and it is objectively a mortal sin for the priest to do this. Made up communion rules of a group are not a justification to disobey the law of the Catholic Church. Interestingly enough, Fr. Cekada wrote a very good explanation on the very similar made up communion rules of the SSPV and how they violate the law of the Catholic Church: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/476/right-receive-communion-cekadaI don't see any essential difference in substituting in Fr. Cekada's tract the NUC bishops and priests for the SSPV, who do the same thing. In both cases, they are binding Catholics to an unsettled matter, and then proceeding to judge a Catholic who will not obey them, and through that judgment deny a Catholic Holy Communion for a ground that is not permitted by the law or the Church. Could you please provide more information on which laws would be violated?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 20, 2023 14:14:22 GMT -5
Fr. Cekada did a great job on this point, in his article, "The Great Excommunicator," when he demonstrated that Bishop Kelly, and by extension, the SSPV, was violating the law of the Church by denying Catholics Holy Communion when they went to SSPV chapels and were denied for the offense of also attending Thuc line or even Lefebvre line who worked with Thuc line priests, (I am personally aware of this applying to Lefebvre line as well). I linked the relevant section above, but the whole article is worth a read: www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/GreatExcommunicator.pdfFr. Cekada had a great mind, so I have no idea what went wrong when he wrote his "Grain of Incense" article and few others, but on some matters, he captured it perfectly, did his homework, and wrote irrefutable papers, and this article was one of them. All baptized have the right to receive Holy Communion. This is the law of the Catholic Church, and is clearly also the mind of the Church that communion must be given except for very specific reasons. If a sacramental bishop, with no authority in the Church, decides he's going to privately settle something on his own non-authority, no one has to listen to him or even care what he is saying. He's not a pastor or a teacher in the Church, so he can only appeal by force of argument on unsettled matters, just like the rest of us, not by any appeal to his authority, and no one is bound to agree with his reasoning or arguments. If this bishop tells Catholics that they must obey him and stop going to a Thuc line chapel or an SSPX chapel, etc., then Catholics do not have to obey him, and he has no business binding anyone to his private non-authoritative opinion. When this bishop or the priests working with him are administering Holy Communion, they are bound by the law of the Catholic Church, not the private group they are working with. The relevant canons in question are all cited in the article, so I won't repeat them here, unless you want to discuss them further, but I have checked Fr. Cekada's work on this, and the sources all support what he wrote. The nine priests who left the SSPX in 1983 used to grasp that they were not authorities and could not bind Catholics on unsettled matters, and even signed their names to this belief in their letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, but somewhere all that has been lost with many of them, who seemed to forget the old principles that once drew Catholics to them.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 28, 2023 16:34:07 GMT -5
My question is by what mechanism or procedure do the NUCleheads actually enforce this non sense. If I went to a Latin Mass at these sanborn centers I simply wouldnt tell them anything...further if they passed me by at the communion Rail I would make that a day that Priest would never forget. It seems to me acquiescence and cowardly human respect has allowed this non sense to fester.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on Mar 28, 2023 20:30:33 GMT -5
For my part, I would like to be able to fight against this error, but the problem is that I do not feel theologically qualified to discuss it in a face-to-face debate with other people, even knowing the arguments and theological quotes, I usually argue badly or badly with the anxiety of the moment. use incorrect words, in addition to not speaking English fluently.
I think that Voxx or Pacelli or people who have more preparation can give a good written debate, and I think that Voxx could try to do a debate or interview with Mario Derksen or one of the respected members of sedevacantism, that would have more reach in the sedevacant world Or with Kevin Davis himself, with whom I wrote on Facebook some time ago, I even thought with Louie Verecchio who was with John Lane, and they speak English, but of course that depends on each individual, while I can I will try to help others avoid the NUC doctrine, this doctrine has harmed me personally, in my country there is only the FSSPX, which for the worse is almost 12 hours from where I live, and all these years I have refrained from receiving the sacraments for which they told me that " it was not convenient to go" because they were in a "schism"... it really is very frustrating, you are filled with scruples and you start to be homealone , praying the Rosary.
For me it is a doctrine that should disappear, even because the Church itself has a known case of a Saint who eliminated a heretic bishop before being condemned by the Church, and was reprimanded by his superior for having stopped naming the heretic before That the Church took action against him, I think it was the case of Nestorio, I don't remember well, therefore, what authority do Sanborn and others have to do this? ...I know of the case of a woman in my country who does not go to the SSPX because she does not support the name of Bergoglio in the canon, but I know that deep down she wants the sacraments and she has to wait for the sedevacantist bishop to come every 5 months or further. is very crazy situation.
One of the reasons that led me to get out of that NUC error was knowing the position of the CMRI, which I respect a lot, but unfortunately I have seen that the new generations are contaminated with this. I wouldn't be surprised if they change positions in the future and God willing they don't.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 29, 2023 10:50:21 GMT -5
I just dont Know marios email...I would totally solicit him for a discussion. I would ask him ...first question: "Consider the following scenario....There is a Catholic soul who loves the Traditional True precouncillar Church...this soul has been convinced of the possibility that Francis is not a Pope and the see is empty. The soul is a simple lay person. Within less than an hour from this souls home there is a Divine Eastern Catholic Liturgy at an Old Eastern rite Parish...With a Solid Manly orthodox validly ordained Priest...There is also an Independant pre 1955 Latin missle Mission Church whos Priest was " conditionally pre ordained By Bishop Williamson...and also a Novus Ordo of the usual stripe. NOW over 3 or 4 hours away...every 2nd Sunday there is Bishop Sandborn Group that rents a Conference room at a hotel. Non Una Cum...Now Mario Which Mass should this Soul attend...where should he frequent to avail himself of the Sacraments?
|
|
|
Post by marcellusfaber on Mar 29, 2023 12:16:04 GMT -5
We should definitely make more of an effort. We do have intelligent people on our side (John Lane, John Daly, Pacelli, our friends at the WM Review), so we should be able to cobble something together.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 29, 2023 16:52:29 GMT -5
Does Any one have a contact for John Lane
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Mar 29, 2023 19:20:23 GMT -5
Does Any one have a contact for John Lane I'll discuss with you in PM
|
|